Post navigation

Four x Four’s To The Rescue

Can it only be as long ago as eighteen months ago that Green Campaigners were targetting owners of four x four gas guzzling apocalypse creating vehicles in places like London and Bristol?

I had some ill kempt crusties screeching at me ‘get a smaller car you selfish bastard, you are drowning the Maldives’ – Huh ??

Yet today as we have snow for the second time in this thing we normal people call, WINTER (not officially due to start for a few days) we are in great demand and are officially ‘heroes’. All complete tosh, all we are doing are driving vehicles in conditions that they were designed for, nothing heroic about that.

BBC West had a major story on how they got a bride to her wedding on Exmoor in their Discovery TD5, hospitals in Wales are relying on volunteer and emergency services 4×4′s to get staff and patients to and from hospital.

All of which goes to show that we are not all selfish bastards trying to drown the Maldives, I think you will agree.

I have no problem with 4×4 owners crowing about having the right car for the conditions. I’ve even found myself considering purchasing a lovely 1979 LWB Landy for kicks.

My problem is that most of the 4x4s in the wild in Blighty never get further off road than parking on the pavement, and when they do venture off tarmac they’ve got the wrong bloody tyres on and are as useless as every other smug bugger in an Audi/BMW/Merc/name your favourite marque here.

Timely piece. I’ve just got back from the motorist discount where I’ve picked up a towing strap, should anyone need a pull out of the snow. Mine’s a 10 year old Mistubishi with selectable 2/4 wheel drive system, so I guess on the basis that 4 wheel drives are destroying the planet I’m mostly in the clear

Hahaha – I do like that last comment. I own, and drive daily, a large 4×4 that is permanent four wheel drive. My greatest joy, in this weather, is to encounter a stranded ecologist type (preferably trying to extract his Priius from a snowy lane) who gives me that hopeful “How about a tow mate?” look – so I can drive straight past with a cheery wave and a shouted “It’s a bugger this Global Warming, isn’t it?”

Here is an interesting conundrum for all the Muesli-Munchers? The single biggest contributor is methane produced by cows. So, in order to reduce the amount of methane produced , surely we should all be eating more beef? But then aren’t the same people always telling us not to eat beef and other meat because ” meat is murder”? What should we do ? Answer = IGNORE THE MUESLI MUNCHERS and get on with our lives….

If you have read the post then you know it does not say that. Sadly we cannot make policy changes that will bring those women back.

However, I would agree that it is sad that so little is being done to encourage people to use transport that is faster, more convenient, healthier and cheaper as well as far less dangerous to other people.

Especially sad to know we are not funding changes to make our cities safer, healthier and happier places to be (see the global survey on liveable cities). Even more so as the kind of changes that would make cycling more popular in Glasgow would probably have had a side effect of traffic calming at the point where the Range Rover killed the two women.

Nope and I am not suggesting we do that (although it would probably surprise you to discover how many pregnant women and disabled OAP’s cycle in the Netherlands where it is safe to do so, even in the snow).

However, a significant switch away from 4×4′s and cars to cycling would

a) reduce the load on the health service eg 3 quick wins: reduced obesity (huge cost to the NHS and we are worst in Europe), reduced heart attacks (50% risk reduction from cycling 20 miles a week) and fewer road injuries (most years cyclists kill nobody, cars kill 1,000′s )

b) free up the roads for those who really need them such as the pregnant woman and disabled OAP’s getting a lift from a 4×4 ambulance funded through the savings in (a)

Note I am not suggesting a ban or attack on 4×4′s, just spend money where we can save lives and make life better for all (unless you prefer pollution, congestion & obesity).

“…free up the roads for those who really need them such as the pregnant woman and disabled OAP’s…”

When those pregnant women and OAPs are the only ones paying road tax you may have a point. Until then, I’ll use what I’m paying for, thanks very much.

“…spend money where we can save lives and make life better for all (unless you prefer pollution, congestion & obesity).”

What I prefer is the freedom to make my own choices on travel (among other things) and also the freedom to happily ignore the hectoring little shits that think they have the answer to life the universe and everything if only people would just fall into line with them, and aren’t averse to some particularly callous shroud-waving to do so.

“When those pregnant women and OAPs are the only ones paying road tax you may have a point. Until then, I’ll use what I’m paying for, thanks very much.”

Afraid you are wrong:

“Road tax doesn’t exist. It’s VED, or ‘car tax’. Motorists do not pay for the roads, we all do, via general taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. He didn’t want motorists to think a token payment gave them ownership of the road. Road tax finally died in 1937, says DVLA. Paying Vehicle Excise Duty gives no ‘right to the road’ for motorists (or car-owning cyclists)” http://ipayroadtax.com/

You talk of your freedom to make your own travel choices.

Why does the freedom to make their own choices on travel made by the two women killed on the pavement in Glasgow not count?

Did anything I wrote deny you the freedom to drive a 4×4? No! I just asked for the freedom for people to make other choices and be safe from the result6s of your choice.

Did I say people should be forced to cycle? No!

Finally, when your freedom to choose kills someone then the automatic charge in court should be manslaughter and your driving license should be taken away for life. Anything else in unfair. I support you having your freedom, but kill someone and you should not have that freedom any more.

According to that impeccable unbiased source, yet another cycling fanatic?

“Why does the freedom to make their own choices on travel made by the two women killed on the pavement in Glasgow not count?”

Why do I suspect that if the car had been a Prius, or indeed anything other than a vehicle loathed because all wheels drive, rather than the front or back two, you’d be keeping rather quiet?

You DO realise you are just as dead if a ‘green’ car hits you at speed, or even a cyclist, don’t you?

“Did anything I wrote deny you the freedom to drive a 4×4? No! I just asked for the freedom for people to make other choices and be safe from the result6s of your choice.”

And when those choices conflict, as it seems they must do (at least according to you)? Then you wrap yourself in the cosy blanket of self-righteousness and insist that YOUR choice is the ‘right’ one and must take precedence…

“Finally, when your freedom to choose kills someone then the automatic charge in court should be manslaughter …”

“According to that impeccable unbiased source, yet another cycling fanatic?”

Who is quoting both Winston Churchill and the DVLA, neither of which are exactly cycling fanatics.

“Why do I suspect that if the car had been a Prius, or indeed anything other than a vehicle loathed because all wheels drive, rather than the front or back two, you’d be keeping rather quiet?”

The only reason I would have kept quiet is that it would not have been relevant to this conversation. My experience is that too many 4×4 drivers assume that because they have traction to move they can also stop and so drive too fast in poor conditions, that is exactly why the Glasgow example is relevant in this conversation.

“And when those choices conflict, as it seems they must do (at least according to you)? Then you wrap yourself in the cosy blanket of self-righteousness and insist that YOUR choice is the ‘right’ one and must take precedence…”

You appear to be writing without any knowledge or experience. I would suggest you try riding a bike anywhere in the UK and then anywhere in the Netherlands (as well as driving your 4×4 in the Netherlands) to see for yourself how the infrastructure is about keeping vulnerable people safe and achieving higher traffic flows at lower cost.

It seems rather pathetic to respond to the two women being killed by that Range Rover by suggesting that wanting to avoid deaths like that in the future is self righteous.

All those are made far worse by excess speed. Would you like to explain to the parents of the two women in Glasgow that it was just an accident and that the driver is blameless. It has been clearly established that speed is a major factor in “accidents” and that higher speeds make the consequences of an “accident” worse.

“That’s why we have impartial courts to decide this, not single-issue fanatics.”

So I am a single-issue fanatic. What does that make you? It appears that you care only for your freedom to do whatever you like. Why should you have that freedom while others live in fear because of your behaviour?

Also it is not the courts that decide the laws or decide who to charge with what offence, keeping to the facts does make discussion easier.

“So I am a single-issue fanatic. What does that make you? It appears that you care only for your freedom to do whatever you like. Why should you have that freedom while others live in fear because of your behaviour?”

Because laws work so very, very well to prevent poor behaviour we need more of them, right?

You are just another blinkered nanny-statist, wishing for the firm hand of government to enforce your own desires on everyone else. For their own good, of course!

And you’ll note that while I own a four-wheel drive vehicle, not only am I fully aware that it doesn’t give me a ‘get out of the laws of physics free’ card, but I am not pouncing on any blog post mentioning the weather or driving difficulties to demand that everyone should buy one.

Unlike cycle-fanatics, who just never know when to shut up about their personal hobby horse…

Again, it would be easier to have a conversation if you actually responded to what I wrote rather than want you wanted to read.

My plea was to enforce the laws we have and to appropriately sentence people, I did not suggest new laws.

Tell me. Do you think the driver of the Range Rover that killed two pedestrians should be allowed to drive again? If so why?

To make those ridiculous claims of being a nanny-statist wanting the government to enforce my desires you cannot have read what I wrote. For example “Note I am not suggesting a ban or attack on 4×4′s, …”

I have not suggested that everyone should have to cycle, I have suggested that those who wish to should be able to do so safely. Wow shock horror, what an outrageous thing to say.

PhiloctetesDecember 20, 2010 at 07:29

Aaarrgghh! They’ve shut our school down because of the weather. I say what’s the point of owning a 4×4?

Firstly, rather than take this specific case consider any number of other convictions of drivers who have killed.

Sadly there are plenty of drivers who have been convicted of a motoring offence for a crash in which a pedestrian or cyclist died. When the driver has been convicted of such an offence do you think they should have their license taken away for life and if not why not?

If I were a teacher and a child under my care died because of my actions should I ever be allowed to be a teacher again? Why is this different to driving?

I recognise that most commonly drivers that kill are only charged with careless or dangerous driving rather than manslaughter. I think that is a injustice – why should killing someone by driving a car into them treated differently from every other way of killing them? I recognise that you disagree with this, although it is a separate issue from my question.

Secondly, as you are an experienced 4×4 driver who respects the laws of physics can you explain for me how this Glasgow crash might not be the drivers fault.

A blackout. H’mm, lucky they managed to miss the bus or they might have got hurt themselves travelling at that speed. Again as I said before. The consequences of a blackout will be less severe if you are travelling more slowly. Around shops, bus stops and pedestrians especially at a busy season like Christmas they should have been going very slowly.

What about the other cases, there are plenty of drivers who have been convicted after killing someone. Should they be allowed to drive again?

Do you have any statistics on the number of car drivers who have died trying to avoid cyclists weaving in and out of the traffic? Have any cyclists been banned from going anywhere near their cycles for 3, 4 or even better, 5 years after such an accident? Do we have figures for the number of cyclists under the influence of drink or drugs? Is there a road test for cyclists before they join the trained motorists on the roads, or do they just come out of Halfords and learn as they go along? Does anybody check whether cyclists know their left from their right before they languidly put an arm out to signal that they are going in completely the opposite direction at a roundabout? Having met a cyclist barreling down a road one way road at considerable spped and been forced to a halt as he swore at me for spoiling his fun, I have always wondered……

ie 1.3% of all serious pedestrian injuries are caused by cyclists or 98.7% by motorised vehicles.

As I am sure you know they don’t count whether cyclists are really the cause of all crashes as you suggest (certainly the figures for cyclists harming pedestrians don’t support your view). My interpretation would be to believe that is based on real world experience by those deciding what to record. It also reflects a hierarchy of vulnerability and responsibility. If you drive an HGV you have more responsibility due to the consequences if you hit anything else, that is why they have more training and tests to pass.

I would be ok if all 0 of the cyclists that killed pedestrians were banned from cycling for life (Julia will probably not be happy at the huge cost in money and legislation to enforce this) providing all the drivers who killed are also banned for life. That is of course easier to do and obviously from the statistics significantly more important.

Also note from the report:

“Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 17 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 13 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 27 per cent of all fatalities.”

At least 27% of all fatalities have speed as a factor.

I don’t know how to interpret the tables on drink driving to answer your challenge. It does seem that a lot of cyclists and pedestrians killed during the night (after 10pm) are over the drink drive limit. But they didn’t kill anyone else.

Given your highly negative views of cyclists (and I don’t see how you can support them from the government statistics) I would have thought you would be in favour of a segregated infrastructure such as much of the Netherlands which keeps cyclists away from cars.

As a cyclist I am routinely sworn at by car drivers, yet I don’t ride through red lights and do my best to keep to the law. Just yesterday I rode along the busy Melton Road in Syston. I did not pass cars when they kept stopping. But when I held up a car for 10 seconds when I indicated and then turned right I got beeped and sworn at. At that time there was a whole 20 metres gap in front of the car that I had followed right the way through town. Maybe you think that 20 metre gap to a car that was already slowing down for the queue to the next r0undabout is significant enough to justify bulling someone on a bike. Unsurprisingly enough I don’t agree.

The question I posed was: Do you have any statistics on the number of car drivers who have died trying to avoid cyclists weaving in and out of the traffic?

Not how many had been killed by cyclists.

We motorists are soft hearted fellows, and quite often hurtle into each other in an effort to avoid the sacntimonious twat in the helmet weaving about in front of us – the fact that he never gets the blame for the accident in government statistics is beside the point. We really should stop trying to avoid cyclists and stray dogs in the road, it’ll be the death of us.

I specifically tried to look for the answer to your question and specifically mentioned that in my reply.

It seems there are no records of cyclists causing car drivers to get killed avoiding the cyclists. You may take that to be a conspiracy. I believe it means the police and stats people have not found it worth recording as it does not actually happen.

Maybe you could find some actual evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile the comparison between the numbers of pedestrians killed by cyclists and cars do not tend to support your claim to be soft hearted.

PericlesDecember 20, 2010 at 22:26

My ! This Dave W is really poisonous — even by the standards of Socialism.

On one thing he is certainly wrong : the users of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom pay around six-times as much in taxes as is spent on the roads ; and three- or four-times as much as is spent on all transport. By any measure that makes Julia M’s allusion to ‘what she pays for’ entirely justified.

Speaking as a cyclist, motor-cyclist, motor-car driver and a former holder of both H.G.V.(1) and P.S.V.(any type) licences (and owner of a Toyota Prius), let me say that I find cyclists almost uniformly the least educated of road users (except in Oxford).

By the way, Joe Public is right about the effect of the cold weather on the K.E.R.S. : normally I get around 55-60 m.p.g. out of the Prius ; in these conditions I’m struggling to get 45. (Prius is hybrid rather than electric, so suffers less than Joe’s postulated 45% deterioration in performance for electric vehicles.)

Having checked out his web site Pericles, I find that he is a man of God, a Minister, a man suffused with the conviction that he speaks with the authority of God in human form. ‘Tis time for me to retire to my Quaker pit for the night…….

I would be interested to see your figures and sources for you breakdown of tax and expenditure for transport.

I notice that these “least educated of road users” did not kill anyone last year (ignoring those who killed themselves) compared to the 2,222 total killed on the roads. Education does not seem a very effective argument does it.